Who will win in 2008?

bulldogg said:
How is his campaign playing out? I saw a 60 minutes segment about him. with only 29% turn out in the last Texas election... from the numbers it sounds like he's got a shot cuz it won't take much to overcome 29% being divided between two parties already.


i have no idea, i dont pay much attention to texas politics
 
If Guliani gets nominated then i think it stands a good shot at winning. I wouldn't mind another republican prez in the house if he's not insane and or stupid. Guliani had to deal with the politics of a very liberal city so he might just reduce partisanship to less embarassing levels. McCain sounds alright to me, he's an old school republican that likes fiscal budget control. Plus he hates that pork barrel. Clinton maybe, it depends on what the political situation will be in a year from now.
 
Don't like Guliani either. He's against the 2nd Amendment. Sorry, but firearms are my life and my source of income as a gunsmith.
 
Warmachine

I know Guiliani well, I voted for the man twice. But there is something you should know, he is one mean SOB. The guy is skilled manager but he also has a knack for rubbing people the wrong way. He is too used to getting his own way and refusing to even consider other peoples opinion. He almost as bad as Bush, except he doesnt have the vengeful streak that Bush has. When he was NYC mayor is rule was nothing short than autocratic, he just happened to be right most of the time. As opposed to Bush who is autocratic and happens to be wrong most of the time. Because of this he has almost as many enemies as allies. But Guiliani's main problem is that he's not a Conservative, and everybody knows it. The nuts on the right wing know they won't be able to control him and he too liberal on most issues for them to stomach. They would never give him or Pataki the nomination.

McCain wont get the nomination either. He has sacrificed his reputation as a maverick and being bipartisian in order to please his conservative base. The trouble is the far right conservatives dont buy it and the liberals and centists are furious at his cozing up to Bush. This was apparent when McCain was loudly booed at the New School, a place where he had been welcomed several times before. So in short the conservatives like but dont trust him; and the centralist/liberals are angry at him. Frankly abandoning the left and the center was a terrible miscalculation, because McCain needs them to win in 2008, he cannot do it on the conservative base alone.

There is one thing that particularily disgusted me about McCain. He actually endorsed Bush in 2004 despite in the 2000 Primary Bush/Rove suggesting he had fathered a illegitamate black girl, in fact his daughter is from Bangladesh and is adopted). McCain is the only man I know who would tolerate a racist attack on his own family. He would have gotten alot more respect had he simply floored Karl Rove. His excuse 'Its in the past'. A personal attack on his family at thats the best he can do? Even his family was shocked. It made him look weak, cowardly, and above all too ambitious to be president.

Personally like Bill Clinton in 1992, I think the president will be an outsider.
 
Bush has a vengeful streak and he's autocratic. Right. I'd love to see some basis for those arguments. If you apply those monikers to Bush, then they pretty much apply to every US president.
 
moving0target said:
Bush has a vengeful streak and he's autocratic. Right. I'd love to see some basis for those arguments. If you apply those monikers to Bush, then they pretty much apply to every US president.

I dont mean to be rude, but if you have to ask the question it really means you dont know the man. Bush is well known for his vindictiveness for slights real or imagined. No president (Democrat or Republican), has been as vengeful as Bush since Richard Nixon, and his victims have included fellow republicans that didnt toe the line. His father, wasn't a vindictive man, neither was Reagan. But boy, this guy just oozes nastiness and petty vindictiveness, a trait from his mother, which is why Nancy Reagan despised her.

Joe Wilson (outed his wife as a CIA agent, after Wilson caught Bush in a lie). A felony.
Scott Ritter (phoney child molester chargers after Ritter disproved Bush claims of WMD in early 2001).
The French (vilefied, and trashed because they refused to back Bush on Iraq, even though there are French troops with the US in Afganistan). Bush even said on ABC News in reference to Chirac 'I doubt he'll be coming to my ranch soon!" with that well known arrogent smirk. You can imagine Chirac's satisfaction at watching Bush beg him for aid after the fiasco unfolded in Iraq.
The Germans (ditto, but on a slighter lesser extent).
Democrats/Liberals Bush allowance to allow his followers to label the left as 'traitors' and 'unamerican' merely because they disagree. Allows his attack dogs to smear those democrats that prove particularily irksome.
Tony Sanchez: A Republican and personal friend to Bush who dared run against Rick Perry (Bush hand picked successor as Govornor). Bush was angered that Sanchez had challenged Bush decision so he let Perry use his own attack dogs that portrayed Sanchez as a Drug money launder responsible for the death of a DEA agent.
Tom Dashcle: Had a TV ad comparing Dashcle to Saddam because Dashcle had torpedoed the economic stimulous plan, which included a $1 Billion Dollar handout to Enron.
Jim Jeffords a Republican who dared vote a little too liberal for Bush's taste and was punished by removing various state aid packages. Jeffords got even. Moral of story, never double-cross a Vermoter.
All Campaign Opponents, Republican or Democrat. Not technically vengeful but illustrates how low this man will get to punish a political opponent, whether it be racists slurs on a baby, the sliming of a vietnam vet, and suggesting that Ann Richards and John McCain were Homosexuals.

Thats a bit of a pattern, and thats only a few. As for the other part I wont elaborate here, but lets just say hes redefined the term 'imperial presidency'.
 
Last edited:
Most Democrats/Liberals are traitors of the USA. They sell out our national secuirty to our enemies, they want the USA to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, they want to disarm americans that own legal firearms for self defense, they want to makw the USA a welfare socialist state.

Screw them....

Are there some Democrats that aren't scum sucking liberals. Yup, just like there are some Republicans that are scum sucking liberals. There is good and bad in both political parties, but there are more bad in thhe left wing right now than there is in the right wing.

I have three words to explain that simple truth.

CLINTON - KERRY - KENNEDY
 
"Hey Turkeys! Behind You" I love that line.

But mmarsh made a very good point, the nominees could very well be black horses since all the contenders now are villainized in one way or another. It seems to me that if any of these high profile politicians are nominated, then the partisan rift could drown out their campaign to a great extent.
 
Most of your examples, mmarsh, are purely opinion and supposition. You take an event and tack on your own reasoning as to "why Bush done it." Gimme a break. It's all part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy isn't it? And how, exactly, do you expect Bush to control his "supports" like they're little marionettes? Half your examples site Bush "allowing" people to do something you dislike. You slam Bush as being "autocratic" but then want him to have absolute control over his followers? Make up your mind.

By the way, I doubt Bush would give a rat's hindquarters what the French did if they weren't implicated in all manner of underhanded dealings with Iraq. If France supported the Hussein regime, then they endangered US lives.
 
moving0target said:
Most of your examples, mmarsh, are purely opinion and supposition. You take an event and tack on your own reasoning as to "why Bush done it." Gimme a break. It's all part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy isn't it? And how, exactly, do you expect Bush to control his "supports" like they're little marionettes? Half your examples site Bush "allowing" people to do something you dislike. You slam Bush as being "autocratic" but then want him to have absolute control over his followers? Make up your mind.

By the way, I doubt Bush would give a rat's hindquarters what the French did if they weren't implicated in all manner of underhanded dealings with Iraq. If France supported the Hussein regime, then they endangered US lives.

My friend, you are slightly living in denial. This is not my opinion, these episodes are all very well documentmented. You can do the research yourself you dont want to take my word for it. And lets not pretend Bush is oblivious to what his supporters do, there is a specific person who handles the minions, his name is Karl Rove. That too is well known. As I said before there are Republicans, even conservative Republicans who acknowledge that Bush is vindictive.

As for oil for food. Your timeline is wrong. That scandal came to light several months after the Iraq invasion. The current French Government was never accused with dealing with Saddam, only a certain disgraced ex-minister from a previous left-wing administration and a certain number of French companies. The U.S never brought charges against Pasqua or Galloway (who is another example of someone being punished for speaking ill of Dubya) so it goes to show you how weak the allegations were. On top of that, certain US companies were implicated as well, there are 3 people awaiting trial in Texas for illegally buying Saddams oil. So lets not be too hypocritical for bashing the French for dealing with Saddam. They did, so did we. Finally it wasnt France that put Saddam in power in the first place. This photo should give you an idea whose pet Saddam really was.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
 
Last edited:
I don't know who I'll be voting for yet, but I sure hope (s)he doesn't pick another random Middle Eastern country to start a war with, hemorrage funds and make Bush's deficit even worse, or anihilate more civil liberties and privacy with another deceptively-named PATRIOT act.

After Bush, I'll have a hard time voting for a Republican for the rest of my life. The only things he's ever done that I approve of are let the 1994 assault weapons ban expire and say we're going to Mars. But he's not going to be in office long enough to see that happen.

I like the liberatarian party. They're probably not getting elected, so I'll probably just end up voting for the lesser of two evils, Republican or Democrat, whichever ends up serving my individual needs better...
 
Hey Major Liability, go for the US Constitutional Party. They have the same stands that the Republican Party claims but they truly mean it. The Liberatarian Party is a good group of folks but they're too open. They want to legalize crack cocain and child abuse. They believe that people should do what ever they want period. No matter what it is. There needs to be limits to some degree.

Less Federal Government, More State/Local Government.

Dark_Mark said:
Barack Obama, hopefully.

Communist
 
Yes.....Dark Mark is a commie. I think....I didn't mean to against ya, Mark.

Hey, Luis, who will running for president of the USA for US Constitutional Party?
 
Oh dear... both of Luis's hot buttons in one thread... communists and drugs in one thread... oh my.
 
bulldogg said:
Oh dear... both of Luis's hot buttons in one thread... communists and drugs in one thread... oh my.

Oh.... Before I forget. This is beach week. So I'm going to be twice as pissed as my normal self. I hate South Beach, Traffic, parking meters, ***holes everywhere, drug use right in front of my face, and the worst part of it all. Finding sand in places that I can't even figure out how sand got there.

So yeah, I think I might be banned for a period of time if I continue posting.
 
Back
Top